User talk:JediRogue/Archival
"in teh archives". Hasty? ^^ Anyways, I could see a guideline about archiving to be useful. --- -- (s)talkpage 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :I would rather it be a policy or part of a policy so that it can be enforced more.... --''Shadowphoenix'' 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::Not GWW. Lord of all tyria 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::According to GW:YAV, the admins shouldn't have a choice of what should be hidden and what shouldn't (since they have no special rights). +1, they shouldn't be allowed to unhide comments from said persons own talkpage. — Warw/Wick 19:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::::I agree GWW is a bit, shall I say um.... strict; but one thing I do agree with is that archives should not be tampered with and should follow a strict format etc. etc. @ May when you hide comments it screams bad faith, that is why we need something on it... --''Shadowphoenix'' 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::::(edit conflict) At the same token, you should not have the rights to remove or hide other user's comments. -- User:Isk8 (T/ 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::{ec]}}This has nothing to do with GWW. It has to do with the needs of this wiki. I will propose it as a policy as soon as a reasonable draft as been formed. Feel free to add your opinions here. Also, an admin's duty to protect the best interests of the wiki (and what they thing of as best interests is usually valid, which is why they were promoted in the first place) supersedes most policies.—[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict) All text is released under the CC-etc-and-so-forth and may be modified or reproduced in any way so long as it's not for commercial use. o: And the whole "you can remove comments from your talk page" thing is really easily abused and shouldn't be done in practice except in cases of vandalism, says I. 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :Tbh, its a users talk page.. Basically, their space on the wiki (imo). No-one else should be allowed to tamper with it, and it should be to their discretion whether or not somthing gets removed. Just imo. — Warw/Wick 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::We're well aware of your stance on the issue. The thing is, personal discretion when removing other people's comments will lead to confusion, misrepresentation, and quite possibly malicious deception. 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I disagree with this policy idea. The user space is just that, the space of the user. You wouldn't go into someone's house and nail everything in place, or go get the garbage that they threw out and bring it back. I think in the user space, users should be able to keep the freedom they presently have. — Powersurge360 Melancholia 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :I pre-emptively oppose any policy that interferes with a users right to archive or not archive their own talk. This isn't GWW, we don't need totalitarian Talk Police-- - (Talk/ ) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::This is more or less "guidelines for archive". This is in no way totalitarianism. -- User:Isk8 (T/ 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::Says "beginnings of a policy", and it sounds to me that there are rules forming. I don't know, seems a ridiculous thing to be wasting effort on. Should we be improving wiki-articles, or governing the way someone saves an old talk page, and whether or not they are allowed to, or forced to. Hmmmm — Powersurge360 Melancholia 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::::PROLES CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO MANAGE THEIR OWN TALKPAGE. AN ADMIN MUST ARBITARILY DECIDE FOR THEM, FOR THE GREATER GOOD!-- - (Talk/ ) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Oh, goodie, people agree with me for once. — Warw/Wick 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::To be honest, this policy would only be in place due to a small number of users; the majority of people wouldn't be affected at all, I think. 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict) I think that it brings up many good points that alot of user's wouldn't normally know about archives. Moving vs copy and paste is a big thing, otherwise any links to that page won't work anymore. Also the note about not archiving an ongoing discussion, which has been an issue a few times. At least give Jedi a chance to compose this before completely shooting it down. -- User:Isk8 (T/ 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::::So it only applies to a few people? Eg you're going to enforce rules on one set of people, but not the others? How the hell does that work? — Warw/Wick 19:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict) @Warwick:Yeh, tis a shame you only have non-entities like me on your side though*, anyhoo, go get some pitchforks and red flags, i'll light the torches *please do not link to gw:yav, i can link myself their tyvm-- - (Talk/ ) 19:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I am going to point out that this proposed policy is in no way infringing on a user's right to control what they put on their userpage. However, a user's talk page is not their userpage. It is a place where they communicate with other users. When an issue that effects the entire site is discussed, I don't know if its appropriate to say that the user whose page its on can just hide it because they don't like evidence of reprimand or whatever on their talk page. It is in no way my intention to say that you can no longer remove content from your talk page. This is about content that shouldn't be removed because it effects the entire site and is part of a live discussion. Additionally, its about having to dig through tons of page revisions just to find the correct content on someones talk page to later refer to it. Users' talk pages are frequently cited other places if they are part of later discussions. Such content shouldn't be hidden or require extra work to hunt down. You can still post whatever in your userspace and you can still talk about bs and even remove stuff from your talk page, as long as its not a current site-related issue. This is about users not censoring their own talk pages more than about admins controlling your content. Still, I welcome all opinions on this matter. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :Put it somwhere else then. — Warw/Wick 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::Which again gives the user the power to control the discussion by saying "Hey, if I don't like where this is going I can make you all do extra work." 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not against a guide for archiving that shows up the do's and don't's of archiving. Hell, it might even be good to have it autolinked on a new user's talk page, so they are sure to see it before they archive. but I'm just uncomfortable with it becoming a policy. It is, after all, only a fansite for a game. We shouldn't let wikidrama consume us so. "You redirected wrongly because (x amount of words). Please don't do it in the future." — Powersurge360 Melancholia 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :I'm sorry, but if you try to control my talkpage on the grounds that it's not my userpage, i'm going to do a Vipermagi-- - (Talk/ ) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::I like that idea. — Warw/Wick 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :Also, to what JediRogue wrote, it may be rude, but it is not wrong. It is the responsibility of the accuser to bring evidence upon the accused. — Powersurge360 Melancholia 19:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::This is not a wikocracy. 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::Don't archive active discussion is the point being raised here? What other issues are there really? Lord of all tyria 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :::Didn't bring it up for legal relevancy, brought it up because it's a good notion and guideline to follow. Also, the problems were that people were deleting and hiding portions of discussions that people wanted to link to, so to maintain image (presumably) — Powersurge360 Melancholia 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) If ya want If ya want I can make a nice draft for this policy with the info you have there already; got to give me about a week though I am getting married on Wed. so I can do it after that :o) --''Shadowphoenix'' 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :I appreciate your offer but I'm not sure I'll need help drafting this. One of the things I'm waiting on is more input from some users as to exactly what others want/need from such a policy. I'll let you know if I want someone's help doing this though. On another note, omg you're getting married?! CONGRATS!!!—[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ::Ok just tell me if you need any help with it, I can help with the formatting and the content if ya want ;o). Thanks! Oh and, ZOMG I RLLY AM lol; but dont tell Felix >.> --''Shadowphoenix'' 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) random input # EVERY SINGLE PERSON has the right to unarchive anybody else's archived discussion. This means an anon can decide something in Entropy's talk archive is worth digging out, and unarchive that section. # The USER: namespace belongs to the user. The USER TALK: namespace belongs to the community. General courtesy and deference should be given to the user the talk page is associated with, when it comes to design and stuff, but the user talk page's primary purpose is a functionality one: for the community to communicate with the user. And thus, unlike the USER: namespace, the USER TALK: namespace belongs to the community. # Archiving a conversation to kill it is bad taste, but if everyone has the right to unarchive it, then important matters will still be discussable, and stuff not important enough can just die. So we just need to make sure everyone know it is ok to unarchive conversaions, and that immediately re-archiving after someone unarchived and posted a message, also is considered breaking 1RV. So basically, I am proposing that if an anon unarchives a discussion in Entropy's archive, makes a new comment, and Entropy immediately re-archives, I get to ban Entropy (she can unban herself, but i'd still ban her to make a point). Of course, discretion should be used, so if soemone unarchives soemthing just to post a "thanks", I'm not gonna ban Entropy for rearchiving that discussion. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) :BTW I pick Entropy as example to further emphasis the point of equality, since "even an anon has the right unarchive a Bcrat", considering there was concern in earlier discussion about letting admins be the judge. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::Right, in that case I'll go do a viper. — Warw/Wick 06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :::shrugs. I'm not interfering with your ability/right to archive. You just need to respect other people's right to unarchive if they feel the conversation is not over. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::I've switched my talk and userpage cause I'll see edits anyhow. The difference is just that I get a new messages box when my user page is touched by someone else than me (so I spot vandalism earlier when going through some old revisions or something similar). This is not an excuse to change any rights people have over my talk page (which is on a different page now. So? ). Just an FYI. --- -- (s)talkpage 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Ye i was aware that you only switched your pages for a laugh and to spot vandalism, but it gave me the idea for a way to get around this policy, i was not implying that you support my arguments in anyway :P. And i am with warw on this, I don't particulary want an anon, or anyone else for that matter deciding to un-archive things on my talkpage (i know i currently have only one archive, but still, my point stands). Also: 'Equality', well, as you pointed out, entropy could just ignore this policy and un-ban herself, so its hardly equal. This wiki has existed without controlling peoples talkpage archiving activities before, why do we suddenly need a policy on it now? And as a final point, i don't think anyone active on the official wiki should have a part in drafting a policy of user control here, the more light-hearted nature we have here is what sets us apart from GWW, if we become as strict as they are then this wiki may aswell not exist-- - (Talk/ ) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::I dont agree with the GWW part, but most else I do. Well, I feel somwhat special. A policy is being proposed for me. Yay. — Warw/Wick 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::Being able to unarchive certain portions of someone's talk page was already allowed, as far as I know. There's nothing to stop you from copy/pasting something that is already in an archive a second time. I've got no qualms with unarchiving certain things, but I don't think there should be specific rules. I think there should be, at most, an etiquette guide. — Powersurge360 Melancholia 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::I'm fine with a guide or people C+P'ing stuff out of archvies, i just think that users should be able to moderate their own talkpage, otherwise everyone will be doing a viper-- - (Talk/ ) 17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::::By swiching your user- and talkpage you can not circumvent rules about archiving and stuff. --- -- (s)talkpage 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I don't think this will be as GWW-esque restrictive as people think it will be... --Shadowcrest 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I'm not afraid of it being immediately restrictive, but it sets a bad precedent. My biggest fear with this is it imposes unnecessary rules in the userspace that could potentially become more and more restrictive. Avalanches can be started with a single outcry. — Powersurge360 Melancholia 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::I disagree with "because she can unban herself, so it's hardly equal". The POLICY itself I am proposal gives equal treatment to all, with no preferential treatment to admins. To use your logic, everything from 1RV to NPA are not equal because any admin violating it can unban themselves, which still wouldn't make this policy's "equity" any less than the other policies. Admins are expected to use discretion, and part of that implied expectation is if another admin bans you to make a point, you shouldn't unban yourself (even if you technically can). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::"This wiki has existed without controlling peoples talkpage archiving activities before, why do we suddenly need a policy on it now?" <- Because one person has already been banned for behavioral issues surrounding the discussion of archive usage. The things I propose intends to reduce conflict and provide a protocol regarding archiving/unarchiving. GW:SIGN came about because of a problem, GW:1RV came about because of a problem. We need something to govern the use of archive/unarchiving because of another problem. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC) :::::::Bleh, i still don't want anyone dragging a flamefest out of an archive and reviving old conflicts-- - (Talk/ ) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::::If it's not worth responding to, you can just quietly not respond to it and let the flame die on its own. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) pointless debate, we're on a wiki Please see my archive here. You can add links like that to any page you feel has deleted content. There is no need to waste additional space by copying content to another page, or even moving - especially moving, as that preserves a version in the page's histroy that the wiki already preserves. A talk archive separate from the wiki archive only makes sense if it is selectively edited, i.e. if the editor keeps those portions of those talks that he/she finds interesting and memorable and wants to expose to the search engine. As such, an archive is a quote of what other people said. As long as cc-by-nc-sa is satisfied, you can quote anything anybody wrote on this wiki anywhere. Of course this also goes for archived content, so "unarchiving" is a non-issue if it is marked as being a quote. And so is selectively archiving (or non-archiving) a discussion: anybody is free to quote part of discussion to others. What we would ask that quotes are correctly attributed, not falsified, and not taken out of context, with links to the context provided explicitly or implicitly if possible. If only part of a discussion is quoted, it should be made clear that this is the case. I am very confused that talk appears to be sacrosanct in this community while admins delete pages at a simple request. I wish these two positions could be more in line with each other. I have on two occasions deleted user comments not on my user page without asking the user first. The second time was to prevent pointers of knowledge of spam block measure circumvention to be displayed in a prominent place. Of course this comment was not archived in the usual archive. Use common sense. --mendel 00:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)